Appeal No. 2000-1592
Application 08/661,220
We are therefore unpersuaded by appellant's arguments as to
the rejection of dependent claims 21 and 24 as argued at page 11
of the principal brief on appeal. We do not agree with
appellant's assertion that the removal of one of the two walls 4
would have been necessary in Léman due to the teachings of
Hellier. On the contrary, only the front wall 9 would have been
necessary to have been shaped according to the showings in
Figures 1 and 5 of Hellier. Advantageously, since Léman is
designed to accommodate phones of different depth, as represented
by phones 2 and 7 in Figure 2 of this reference, the artisan
would have found it obvious as well to have incorporated the
design teachings of Hellier into the front portion of Léman's
base 1.
Because of the earlier noted logical flaws of the rejection
of independent claim 25 and because of our decision to sustain
the rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 21, and 24, which contain
similar features of an open front wall, we institute a new
rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) of independent claim 25 and its
dependent claims 26 and 27 consistent with the examiner's
reasoning initially advanced for obviousness of claims 11, 12,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007